Florida Senate - 2016(NP) SB 18By Senator Braynon
36-00080-16 201618__
1 A bill to be entitled
2 An act for the relief of Brian Pitts; directing the
3 Division of Administrative Hearings to appoint an
4 administrative law judge or special master to
5 determine a basis for equitable relief for the purpose
6 of compensating Mr. Pitts for the wrongful acts or
7 omissions of the State of Florida or officials
8 thereof; requiring a report to the Legislature;
9 authorizing compensation to Mr. Pitts upon a
10 determination by an administrative law judge;
11 providing an appropriation to compensate Mr. Pitts for
12 injuries and damages sustained; providing a limitation
13 on attorney fees and costs; directing that certain
14 court orders and judgments be declared null and void;
15 specifying the limited circumstances under which Mr.
16 Pitts may represent himself or others in judicial or
17 administrative proceedings; directing the Department
18 of Law Enforcement to investigate certain illegal acts
19 committed by certain persons; authorizing the
20 Governor, the President of the Senate, or the Speaker
21 of the House of Representatives to sever portions of
22 this act under certain circumstances; providing an
23 effective date.
24
25 WHEREAS, this state has clearly recognized the practice of
26 law by lay persons since at least 1980 as declared in The
27 Florida Bar v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980), and
28 in The Florida Bar re Advisory Opinion on Nonlawyer
29 Representation in Securities Arbitration, 696 So. 2d 1178, 1180
30 1181, 1183-1184 (Fla. 1997), the Legislature and judiciary
31 having concurrent jurisdiction to regulate such, and
32 WHEREAS, Brian Pitts has exercised this privilege since
33 2001 in Pinellas County, and his practice was later enjoined by
34 the Florida Supreme Court in case number SC02-247, in a final
35 order dated November 6, 2003. As stated in the order,
36 “respondent Brian Pitts is enjoined from engaging in the
37 practice of law in the State of Florida as specified in the
38 referee’s report. Specifically, respondent is hereby enjoined
39 from engaging in any of the following activities: (1) appearing
40 in any Florida court as a representative of a party, giving
41 legal advice in a Florida case, or otherwise participating in
42 any Florida litigation on behalf of any party unless otherwise
43 authorized by Florida statutes, court rule, case law,
44 administrative rule, or the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar . .
45 . .” See The Florida Bar v. Pitts, 861 So. 2d 432 (Fla.
46 2003)(No. SC02-247, November 6, 2003),
47 www.floridasupremecourt.org, and
48 WHEREAS, since the inception of Mr. Pitts’ practice, Mr.
49 Pitts contends that the Second District Court of Appeal, the
50 Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida serving Pasco and Pinellas
51 Counties, the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
52 Circuit of Florida, and The Florida Bar have, without cause,
53 continued to deprive Mr. Pitts of the privilege of practicing
54 law as prescribed by the Legislature and Florida Supreme Court,
55 subjecting him to civil and criminal proceedings and penalties
56 on an ongoing basis, and
57 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts opines that the Florida Supreme Court,
58 in its 2003 final order in case number SC02-247, has subjected
59 him to entrapment and needlessly and unjustly avoided and failed
60 to exercise its constitutional duty upon his many requests to
61 clarify or amend the final order or to promulgate court rules
62 through The Florida Bar following original proceedings brought
63 or suggested by Mr. Pitts to correct the matter, and
64 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that the courts, The Florida
65 Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
66 Circuit of Florida have engaged in a course of misconduct and
67 colluded against Mr. Pitts in cases SC02-247, SC06-1279, CRCAB
68 65835CFANO, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07-03965
69 MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, CTC03-01887MMANO, and CTC03-09855MMANO
70 from 2001 to 2012 and that such misconduct has resulted in his
71 wrongful and unlawful incarceration in the Pinellas County Jail
72 for a total of nearly 1 year, and
73 WHEREAS, the purpose of this course of misconduct was, in
74 Mr. Pitts’ opinion, to retaliate against him for not being a
75 member of The Florida Bar despite being otherwise lawfully
76 authorized to represent third persons he assisted in legitimate
77 legal matters and, by way of his detainment, to thwart his
78 pending pro se actions for relief from the collusion by civil,
79 appellate, or original proceedings directed to or from the above
80 criminal cases, and
81 WHEREAS, appearing pro se in many of his cases, Mr. Pitts
82 was complimented by several judges of the Sixth Judicial Circuit
83 for his exceptional degree of technical and performance
84 competence that would be expected of any trained and experienced
85 member of The Florida Bar, yet he was informed by express or
86 implied communication that he would not receive the relief
87 requested in any given proceeding unless represented by a member
88 of The Florida Bar, as matter of camaraderie, and
89 WHEREAS, although Mr. Pitts appeared pro se in said cases
90 and other actions seeking relief from said collusion, he was at
91 times represented by appointed counsel; however, such
92 proceedings proved to be futile because, Mr. Pitts contends, the
93 proceedings were staged by the courts and the State Attorney’s
94 Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida to be illusory,
95 and
96 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the courts failed to abide
97 by binding precedent and stare decisis, where applicable, as
98 well as Florida Rules of Court, as evidenced by the series of
99 filings in each case by Mr. Pitts, or his court-appointed
100 counsel, hence depriving Mr. Pitts of procedural and substantive
101 due process, equal protection of the law, self-representation,
102 and representation by counsel under the United States
103 Constitution, and
104 WHEREAS, the Second District Court of Appeal declared in
105 Denson v. State, 711 So. 2d 1225, 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) that
106 “appellate judges take an oath to uphold the law and the
107 constitution of this state. The citizens of this state properly
108 expect these judges to protect their rights. When reviewing an
109 appeal with a preserved issue, if we discover that a person has
110 been subjected to a patently illegal sentence to which no
111 objection was lodged in the trial court, neither the
112 constitution nor our own consciences will allow us to remain
113 silent and hope that the prisoner, untrained in the law, will
114 somehow discover the error and request its correction. If three
115 appellate judges, like a statue of the ‘see no evil, hear no
116 evil, speak no evil’ monkeys, declined to consider such serious,
117 patent errors, we would jeopardize the public’s trust and
118 confidence in the institution of courts of law.” Compare,
119 Bedford v. State, 633 So. 2d 13, 14 (Fla. 1994), and
120 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that the judges who presided in
121 his cases have deliberately and intentionally, in concert with
122 the Florida Supreme Court justices, failed to abide by these
123 rules of law as to Mr. Pitts’ cases on appeal or by original
124 proceedings brought and maintained by him or his counsel, and
125 WHEREAS, it has become evident, in Mr. Pitts’ opinion, that
126 The Florida Bar, State Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial
127 Circuit of Florida, and the judges and justices involved at each
128 level of Mr. Pitts’ cases all have a personal and private,
129 rather than public, interest at issue in deterring Mr. Pitts
130 from engaging in the authorized practice of law as prescribed in
131 this state, and
132 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that such determent is due to a
133 matter of camaraderie among those of the legal profession and an
134 interest in protecting it by any means from lawful competition,
135 where applicable, and
136 WHEREAS, this determent demonstrates a lack of neutrality,
137 proper motives, and discretion which deprives Mr. Pitts of the
138 required process and means of justice or resolution as normally
139 expected of esteemed persons in their official capacities, and
140 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that the Pinellas County
141 Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of
142 the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for
143 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by illegally incarcerating
144 him in the Pinellas County Jail during the time periods of
145 January 2003 through April 2004 and March 12, 2010, through July
146 4, 2010, refusing him administrative alternative sentencing
147 without cause, and subjecting him to living conditions and
148 circumstances in violation of Florida Model Jail Standards
149 (2.15)(c); (4.12); (4.13); (4.15); (5.08)(a), (c)(1)-(8), and
150 (j); (6.02); (9.06)(b); (9.08); (9.10); (10.01); (11.12);
151 (11.16); (12.03)(d)-(g), (i); (12.06); Appendix A; and ss.
152 951.03 and 951.033(3), Florida Statutes, and
153 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts also contends that the Pinellas County
154 Sheriff’s Office further participated in the concerted effort of
155 the courts, The Florida Bar, and the State Attorney’s Office for
156 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida by extending his sentence
157 an additional 50 days of detention in violation of Inmate
158 Handbook XI. A., Florida Model Jail Standard (4.16), and ss.
159 951.21(1) and 921.16(1), Florida Statutes, which subjected him
160 to cruel and unusual punishment, false imprisonment, and a
161 denial of due process and equal protection of the law. See
162 Miller v. Carson, 599 F.2d 742 (5th Cir. 1979); Miller v.
163 Carson, 563 F.2d 757 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 563 F.2d
164 741 (5th Cir. 1977); Miller v. Carson, 401 F. Supp. 835 (M.D.
165 Fla. 1975); Miller v. Carson, 392 F. Supp. 515 (M.D. Fla. 1975);
166 Solomos v. Jenne, 776 So. 2d 953 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000); Douthit v.
167 Jones, 619 F.2d 527 (5th Cir. 1980), and
168 WHEREAS, such conditions and circumstances of the jail are
169 reflected in a St. Petersburg Times article dated July 5, 2010,
170 and titled “Thousands of Pinellas jail inmates released without
171 a judge ever setting bail,” which is complemented by a series of
172 articles released by the Orlando Sentinel, including “Florida’s
173 suspect jails: The state’s hands-off approach to inspecting
174 jails leaves them vulnerable,” dated April 8, 2010; “Jail
175 standards chief defends system of checks,” dated May 15, 2010;
176 “If all Central Florida jails rate an A, is it deserved?” dated
177 May 15, 2010; “Beef up jail oversight: Florida jails need tough
178 oversight, not coddling,” dated May 18, 2010; and other
179 articles, and
180 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts contends that such conduct was a clear
181 abuse of judicial, executive, and administrative authority as to
182 the state court system and local government, including the State
183 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida and
184 the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office, which resulted in a public
185 embarrassment to this state because such authorities knew that
186 there was not any basis in fact or law for their unlawful acts
187 against him, and
188 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts believes that his good name and
189 reputation have been damaged; he has been deprived of due
190 process, the ability to conduct a lawful business, freedom of
191 speech, property, liberty, and equal protection of the law; he
192 has not benefited from constitutional protections against
193 unlawful trusts by public officers and employees under oath of
194 office and double jeopardy protections as to criminal
195 proceedings and sanctions; and he has suffered mental anguish
196 and emotional distress as the result of the intentional
197 misconduct and gross negligence of the courts, the State
198 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, The
199 Florida Bar, and the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office relating
200 to his practice of law as a nonlawyer in this state, and,
201 further, there is no state-action exception to federal anti
202 trust laws, which were violated in the subject cases, and
203 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts has suffered, and continues to suffer,
204 significant monetary damage by virtue of lost income, property,
205 and time, expenses, fees, fines, costs, and restitution
206 resulting from the civil and criminal proceedings relating to
207 his alleged unauthorized or unlicensed practice of law, and
208 WHEREAS, Mr. Pitts frequently appears before the
209 Legislature to instruct, advise, inform, and advocate for or
210 against proposed legislation covering a broad spectrum of topics
211 and subject matter in fact and law with an exceptional degree of
212 technical competence that would be expected of any trained and
213 experienced member of The Florida Bar, and
214 WHEREAS, the Legislature recognizes that no system of
215 justice is impervious to human error, and
216 WHEREAS, the Legislature acknowledges that any system of
217 justice may sometimes yield imperfect results that may have
218 tragic consequences, and
219 WHEREAS, this claim is based on a moral and legal
220 obligation of the Legislature to acknowledge its actions and act
221 on its authority to correct a wrong when those actions have
222 resulted in a manifest injustice or disregard for the law, and
223 WHEREAS, the filing of this claim bill is in accord with
224 the holdings of the Florida Supreme Court regarding legislative
225 claim bills. See Circuit Court of Twelfth Judicial Circuit v.
226 Dep’t of Natural Res., 339 So. 2d 1113, 1116-1117 (Fla.
227 1976)(”Absent legislation waiving the state’s sovereign immunity
228 . . . this Court cannot authorize relief through the judicial
229 process”); Gerard v. Dep’t of Transp., 472 So. 2d 1170, 1172
230 (Fla. 1985)(“[W]e agree with the Department of Transportation’s
231 assertion that a judgment in this case was not a prerequisite to
232 Gerard’s filing a claims bill in the legislature.”), and
233 WHEREAS, the First District Court of Appeal in Jetton v.
234 Jacksonville Electric Authority, 399 So. 2d 396, 397 (Fla. 1st
235 DCA 1981), stated that although the Legislature has placed
236 limits on recovery, “claimants remain free to seek legislative
237 relief bills, as they did during days of complete sovereign
238 immunity,” and
239 WHEREAS, the Florida Supreme Court in Dickinson v. Bradley,
240 298 So. 2d 352, 354 (Fla. 1974), held that “any claim bill is
241 restricted to less than the general public and its purpose is to
242 discharge the state’s moral obligation to any individual or
243 other entity whom or which the legislature recognizes as being
244 entitled to such. . . . The legislature may enact a claim bill
245 for what would be a tort if a private party was involved just as
246 effectively as for what would constitute a contractual debt,”
247 and
248 WHEREAS, the Legislature intends that any compensation made
249 pursuant to this act be the sole compensation provided by the
250 state for any and all present and future claims arising out of
251 the facts presented in this act, NOW, THEREFORE,
252
253 Be It Enacted by the Legislature of the State of Florida:
254
255 Section 1. The facts stated in the preamble to this act are
256 found and declared to be true, and all judicial and
257 administrative remedies were exhausted as of September 9, 2003
258 April 30, 2004; September 30, 2005; May 21, 2007; September 7,
259 2007; December 12, 2008; September 14, 2009; February 22, 2010;
260 March 11-July 4, 2010; and March 30, 2012, respectively.
261 Section 2. The Division of Administrative Hearings shall
262 appoint an administrative law judge, or a special master shall
263 be appointed, to conduct a hearing to determine a basis for
264 equitable relief for the purpose of compensating Brian Pitts for
265 any wrongful act or omission of the State of Florida, the State
266 Attorney’s Office for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, and
267 the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office regarding investigations
268 involving Mr. Pitts, the civil and criminal proceedings relating
269 to Mr. Pitts’ alleged unlicensed or unauthorized practice of
270 law, and his incarcerations totaling nearly 12 months from 2001
271 to 2012, if not longer.
272 Section 3. (1) The administrative law judge or special
273 master shall determine by a preponderance of the evidence
274 whether the State of Florida, the State Attorney’s Office for
275 the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida, or the Pinellas County
276 Sheriff’s Office committed a wrongful act or omission and
277 whether a basis for equitable relief exists, and if it so finds,
278 the administrative law judge or special master shall award Mr.
279 Pitts an amount of up to $7 million, but not less than $1
280 million, to be paid proportionately by the parties that wronged
281 him and to be paid in lump sum or in payments over a period of
282 no more than 10 years.
283 (2) The administrative law judge or special master shall
284 report his or her determination to the President of the Senate
285 and the Speaker of the House of Representatives by July 1, 2016.
286 The Chief Financial Officer is directed to draw a warrant in
287 satisfaction of the relief awarded by the administrative law
288 judge, special master, or Legislature, as provided in this act,
289 and to pay the warrant out of the Administrative Trust Fund or
290 State Courts Revenue Trust Fund within the state courts system
291 and the State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund to Brian Pitts.
292 Pinellas County shall pay the warrant out of its general revenue
293 fund or by other means it has provided to pay valid claims
294 against it relating to the Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office and
295 as to its share of the total award to Mr. Pitts.
296 (3) This award is intended to provide the sole compensation
297 for all present and future claims arising out of the factual
298 situation described in this act which resulted in unlawful or
299 unconstitutional acts committed against Mr. Pitts in connection
300 with allegations, judgments, and convictions of the unlicensed
301 or unauthorized practice of law and his incarcerations totaling
302 nearly 12 months, if not longer, from 2001 through 2012. The
303 total amount paid for attorney fees, lobbying fees, costs, and
304 other similar expenses relating to this claim may not exceed 25
305 percent of the amount awarded under this act.
306 (4) All final orders, judgments, decrees, and convictions,
307 and orders or liens pertaining to fees, fines, costs, and
308 restitution, rendered in cases SC06-1279, SC09-195 and SC09
309 2243, CRCAB-90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO,
310 CTC07-03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03
311 01887MMANO in which Mr. Pitts is the respondent or defendant are
312 null and void by this act by virtue of the doctrine of
313 separation of powers because the courts failed to recognize the
314 Legislature’s lawful and valid enactments, in addition to the
315 courts’ own lawful and valid case precedent, rules, and orders,
316 authorizing lay representation as expressed in The Florida Bar
317 v. Moses, 380 So. 2d 412, 416-418 (Fla. 1980); by virtue of
318 inherent authority of this Legislature as expressed in Florida
319 House of Representatives v. Crist, 999 So. 2d 601, 611 (Fla.
320 2008), Trianon Park Condominium Ass’n v. City of Hialeah, 468
321 So. 2d 912, 918, 919 (Fla. 1985); by virtue of checks and
322 balances exercised by this Legislature as expressed in State Ex
323 Rel. Young v. Duval County, 79 So. 692, 697 (Fla. 1918), in
324 which the court found, “[a] clear violation of the
325 constitutional provisions dividing the powers of government into
326 departments should be checked and remedied.” As the court found
327 in State v. City of Stuart, 120 So. 335, 346 (Fla. 1929), “[t]he
328 general rule is that the Legislature is supreme in the
329 legislative field, which is the most powerful branch of
330 government, so long as it does not violate any of the provisions
331 of the organic law. There is to our minds no justifiable
332 exception of any class of legislation from this all-pervasive
333 and fundamental principle.” Finally, by virtue of the cases
334 involving Mr. Pitts, the courts failed to comply with the
335 mandates of s. 20.02(1), Florida Statutes, which states that
336 “[t]he judicial branch has the purpose of determining the
337 constitutional propriety of the policies and programs and of
338 adjudicating any conflicts arising from the interpretation or
339 application of the laws.”
340 (5) The clerk of the court for the Florida Supreme Court,
341 as to cases SC06-1279, SC09-195, and SC09-2243, and the clerk of
342 the court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit, as to cases CRCAB
343 90407CFANO, CRCAB-65835CFANO, CRC07-12964CFANO, CTC07
344 03965MMANO, CTC03-09855MMANO, CTC03-01885MMANO, and CTC03
345 01887MMANO, all pertaining to Mr. Pitts, are hereby directed to
346 remove from public and private access all dockets, records,
347 documents, and recorded orders or liens related to those cases
348 and transmit them to the Department of Law Enforcement to
349 fulfill the duties required under section 6 of this act. The
350 Department of Law Enforcement is hereby directed to remove from
351 public and private access all record history and information of
352 a criminal nature concerning Mr. Pitts. This record history and
353 information include, but are not limited to, fingerprints, felon
354 registration, and all other matters concerning the case numbers
355 cited in this subsection. These records, information, or
356 documents may not be used by or accessed for any purpose by
357 anyone unless access to those records is required by federal
358 authorities or for investigations conducted under section 6 of
359 this act.
360 (6) The Department of Law Enforcement is directed to ensure
361 the compliance, execution, and enforcement of subsections (4)
362 and (5) of this section and section 6, and shall provide
363 protective services to Mr. Pitts ensuring his rights,
364 privileges, and safety under sections 4, 5, and 6 of this act.
365 Section 4. In accordance with the Florida Supreme Court’s
366 final order in case number SC02-247 and the exception contained
367 in clause (1) of that order, unless otherwise authorized by
368 Florida Statutes, court rule, case law, administrative rule, or
369 the rules regulating The Florida Bar, thereby authorizing Mr.
370 Pitts to practice law in this state, the Legislature authorizes
371 Mr. Pitts to practice law in this state under the following
372 designations, titles, rules, decisions, or acts in the capacity
373 as a lay counselor or lay representative:
374 (1) Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, relating to a qualified
375 representative.
376 (2) Chapter 44, Florida Statutes, relating to a designated
377 representative.
378 (3) Chapter 709, Florida Statutes, relating to an attorney
379 in-fact under a durable power of attorney, when coupled with an
380 interest in any personal or property claim, election, right, or
381 interest.
382 (4) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
383 relating to representation in real property management.
384 (5) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
385 relating to a nonlawyer using approved forms.
386 (6) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
387 relating to representation in county or small claims civil
388 proceedings.
389 (7) Decisions or rules of the Florida Supreme Court
390 relating to third-party standing representation.
391 (8) Rule 5-15, Rules Relating to Admission to The Florida
392 Bar.
393 (9) Judicial discretion under the inherent authority
394 doctrine.
395 (10) Federal law, state law, local rule, statute, local
396 law, or any other court or administrative decision or order
397 under federal, state, or local law and authority.
398 Section 5. Any appearance or public testimony given by Mr.
399 Pitts on bills or matters before the Legislature, wherever held
400 or convened throughout this state, does not constitute the
401 practice of law. In all circumstances Mr. Pitts retains the
402 right to represent himself at any time he has valid standing
403 supported by law. If Mr. Pitts is the subject of civil,
404 administrative, or criminal proceedings, he retains the right to
405 represent himself without a lawyer in court and in
406 administrative actions or cases.
407 Section 6. Due to the ongoing conduct from 2001 to 2012
408 against Mr. Pitts as described in the preamble of this act, the
409 Legislature directs the Department of Law Enforcement, assisted
410 by Mr. Pitts, to investigate these acts committed by:
411 (1) The Florida Supreme Court justices involved for
412 violations of ss. 914.22(2)(f) or (4)(f), Florida Statutes, and
413 18 U.S.C. 1512, relating to their final ruling rendered on
414 February 22, 2010, in case SC06-1279, which resulted in the
415 incarceration of Mr. Pitts on the eve of the 2010 Legislative
416 Session while proceedings on SB 58 were pending, and in Mr.
417 Pitts’ cases relating to motions, reviews, and original
418 proceedings for violations of ss. 542.21(2), 775.15(12)(b),
419 777.04(2) and (3),836.05,838.015,838.016,838.022,839.13(1),
420 839.24,843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10,895.03, and 918.13,
421 Florida Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241,
422 242, 1951, and 1962.
423 (2) The Second District Court of Appeal judges assigned to
424 Mr. Pitts’ cases on motions, reviews, and original proceedings;
425 the Sixth Judicial Circuit judges; and the state attorneys
426 involved in violations of ss. 542.21(2), 775.15(12)(b),
427 777.04(2) and (3),836.05,838.015, 838.016,838.022,839.13(1),
428 839.24,843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3), 876.10, 895.03, and 918.13,
429 Florida Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241,
430 242, 1951, and 1962.
431 (3) The Florida Bar and its representatives, who pursued
432 charges of unlicensed practice of law against Mr. Pitts, for
433 their violations of ss. 542.21(2),777.04(2) and (3),836.05,
434 838.015, 838.016, 839.13(1), 895.03, and 918.13, Florida
435 Statutes; 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, and 3; and 18 U.S.C. 201, 241, 242,
436 1951, and 1962.
437 (4) The Pinellas County Sheriff’s Office for violations of
438 ss. 775.15(12)(b), 839.13(1),843.03, 843.0855(2) and (3),
439 876.10, 950.09, and 951.14, Florida Statutes, and 18 U.S.C. 201,
440 241, or 242.
441
442 The Department of Law Enforcement shall exercise all authority
443 granted to it under general law to investigate criminal
444 violations under this act and shall refer any evidence of such
445 crimes to the appropriate state attorney for prosecution.
446 Failure of the Department to Law Enforcement to investigate
447 these criminal violations and refer any evidence of such
448 violations to the appropriate officialsis a misdemeanor of the
449 first degree under s. 775.15(12)(b). Charges arising out of the
450 criminal investigation shall be brought before a grand jury
451 impaneled in Leon County within 1 year after passage of this
452 act.
453 Section 7. The Governor, the President of the Senate, or
454 the Speaker of the House of Representatives may sever in whole
455 or in part any section of this act, excluding this section,
456 which remaining parts shall be in full force and effect upon
457 becoming law. Notwithstanding severance, Brian Pitts shall
458 retain the right or privilege during future legislative sessions
459 to request the relief severed in whole or in part by virtue of
460 this section until fully remedied.
461 Section 8. This act shall take effect upon becoming a law.